header-logo header-logo

14 April 2011 / David Burrows
Issue: 7461 + 7462 / Categories: Features , Mediation , Family
printer mail-detail

Under new rule (3)

In his third FPR update David Burrows looks at costs savings, case management & mediation

Few would disagree that the legal costs associated with most litigation are a blight on the finances of many of the parties involved. With family proceedings, the problem is at its most stark where, often, the parties’ means and the lawyers fees are part of the assets and liabilities over which much family litigation rages.

An argument can be advanced that the new Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) do little to assist with costs savings. The new rules can be seen—sometimes by omission, sometimes almost deliberately—as stoking up costs: many rules lack logic and will be expensive for the judges to clarify; disclosure rules are confused and aspects of rules as to expert evidence (eg, instruction of joint experts) are deliberately more expensive than under CPR 1998.

This article, the third in the present series, looks at two particular aspects of the scheme which are central to costs saving, and which are new to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll